Model comparison

Qwen Turbo vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.9 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 8.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen Turbo

Alibaba (Qwen)

26.8

Rank #329 Reported

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Alibaba (Qwen)

32.9

Rank #239 Confirmed

Summary

The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 30.8 to 14.5.
Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen Turbo and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Provider	Alibaba (Qwen)	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	26.8	32.9
Released	2024-11-01	2024-09-18
Weights	Proprietary	Open
Context window	1M	33K
Max output	16K	29K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$0.66
Output $ / M tokens	$0.20	$1
Results tracked	3	31

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)	—	9%
Aider Polyglot	—	16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	49%
LiveBench Coding	—	56.9%
LMArena Coding	—	1276
BigCodeBench Complete	—	58%
HumanEval+	—	87.2%
MBPP+	—	77%

Reasoning Not comparable

Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LiveBench Reasoning	—	42.1%
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1251
LiveBench Data Analysis	—	49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	119.41
HellaSwag	—	83%
LiveBench	—	46.2%
WinoGrande	—	80.8%

Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	6.1%	—
LiveBench Math	—	46.6%
LMArena Math	—	1251
MATH Level 5	56.2%	—
GSM8K	—	93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
GPQA Diamond	41.8%	—
LMArena Expert	—	1221
ARC (AI2) Challenge	—	70.5%
MMLU	—	79.1%

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English	—	1205
LMArena Chinese	—	1222
LMArena Russian	—	1228

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following	—	58.7%
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1223

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query	—	1251

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen Turbo	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text	—	1230
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1174
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1222
LiveBench Language	—	23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen Turbo better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Which is cheaper, Qwen Turbo or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen Turbo and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen Turbo has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.